Christian Scholar: The Bible is More Violent Than the Koran

Islam requires a reformation. Sunni is a high risk mindset.

a reply to: infolurker

You conveniently overlook the Billions given to Israel by the USA because of some common heritage in the Bible not to mention the Zionist element in the US dictating US foreign policy.

When was the last time the USA called for Israel to make known the number of Nukes they have...oh thats right - the big elephant in the room everyone avoids.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

not that Christianity is violent it is just the book has a lot of historical narrative of wars and death in it.

And if I mention the Crusades you will say they were not true christians - it was about spoils of war and territory, funny how that's being played out again in the Middle East right now. We get it Jesus didn't condone violence, history attests otherwise

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Right. Another poster even tried to minimize it by saying they only use it for Genesis and only the first couple chapters. Well, even if that were true it doesn't change it much since how many ways have just the couple chapters of Genesis been used to justify everything from Anti-Gay Bigotry to Really Bad Education Policy about Science Class or Even Environmental Policy.

When you can interpret the meaning of something different ways depending upon who's reading it and for what purpose you still allow for various conflicting ideas to cause trouble.

a reply to: infolurker

Madman Mohammad was sent by God to start Islam

How convenient that Saul of Tarsus had a miraculous vision that none of his other party could verify on the road to Damascus'. He became the Trojan horse that subverted the disciples message, allowed the gentiles in and played Romes policy. The Roman Empire still rules to this day. Everytime I see an elected Leader of a country bow to the Pope I cringe. Sellouts!

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
We get it Jesus didn't condone violence, history attests otherwise

Well, to be fair, if you go by the stories Jesus did promote peace and didn't condone violence. However, those same stories also say his followers had a hard time understanding his message so he had to keep repeating it. In the end it also got him tortured and killed. So while Jesus may in fact have promoted peace, it seems he might have been the only one who really liked that idea.

originally posted by: mOjOm

Which should of had the response of, "Well sir let me use it in an example for you. You IS in serious trouble!"

I would have said...

Sir, looking at the transcripts you have used the word "is" 100% correctly 12,346 times, so I think it is safe to say you know what the meaning of "is" is.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: infolurker

Madman Mohammad was sent by God to start Islam

How convenient that Saul of Tarsus had a miraculous vision that none of his other party could verify on the road to Damascus'. He became the Trojan horse that subverted the disciples message, allowed the gentiles in and played Romes policy. The Roman Empire still rules to this day. Everytime I see an elected Leader of a country bow to the Pope I cringe. Sellouts!

Anytime I see someone bow to the Kingpriest, I cringe as well. This will explain it quite well.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
I placed this thread under DD because this is not really a religious conspiracy, its based on verifiable facts. However, it would seem as though there is a an effort to demonize one religion (or religious text) over another when in actuality, the "Abrahamic" religions have a lot of similarities.

I found this interesting article written by Bruce Wilson (Top Christian Scholar: The Bible is More Violent Than the Koran) in which he talks about a book written by Philip Jenkins:

Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses.

"In terms of its bloodthirsty and intolerant passages, the Bible raises considerably more issues than does the Qur'an. Some Bible passages justify genocide and multigenerational race war; the Qur'an has nothing comparable.

While many Qur'anic texts undoubtedly call for warfare or bloodshed, these are hedged around with more restrictions than their biblical equivalents, with more opportunities for the defeated to make peace and survive.

Furthermore, any of the defenses that can be offered for biblical violence--for instance, that these passages are unrepresentative of the overall message of the text--apply equally to the Qur-an."

Brian goes on to explain that this should not be perceived as religious bashing but it should be viewed as an exercise in truth telling.

He provides excerpts from the book and then goes on to talk about the "Islamophobia industry".

For the Islamophobia industry* there are... ...claims that Islam is a uniquely violent or even a terrorist religion due to the nature of scripture found in the Koran.

The Bible, demonstrates Jenkins, contains scriptural violence that is categorically more extreme than scriptural violence found in the Koran. The Bible even offers, according to Jenkins, a much more specific scriptural justification for suicide terrorism than does the Koran.

The narrative that Islam is somehow uniquely violent and that this derives from Islamic scripture has become deeply embedded in American culture - one can encounter such arguments from popular comics such as Bill Maher, from Fox News, from Newsweek, even from trendy social media websites such as Reddit.com.

With regards to the conspiratorial aspect, Mr. Wilson references the following:

A report by the Center for American Progress:

REPORT: $42 Million From Seven Foundations Helped Fuel The Rise Of Islamophobia In America.

A "Right Wing" anti-Islamic "playbook":

The Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism.

and a report presented to Congress:

Tax Dollar Funding for Anti-Muslim Counterterrorism Training Revealed in Detailed Report to Congress.

...a vocal and influential sub-group of the private counterterrorism training industry markets conspiracy theories about secret jihadi campaigns to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law, and effectively impugns all of Islam -- a world religion with 1.3 billion adherents--as inherently violent and even terroristic.

Now, many of you will say, "so what"? Non-Moslems still arent as violent as Moslems.

But that reveals another issue.

When a non-Moslem commits a crime, we dont attribute those acts to their religion. This isnt the case for Moslems. If a crime is committed by a Moslem, we blame the religion as opposed to identifying them by their race or nationality.

Take for example the San Bernardino multiple victim public shooting. This was classified as an act of "terror" but the Binghamton, NY and the Aurora CO shootings were not. Why? Simply because of their religious backgrounds even though the acts were identical.

Mugabe, Lenin, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, Yakubu Gowon, Mengistu Haile Mariam, the most recognizable names in modern human suffering, none of them are designated or categorized by their religion...

Even the war crimes committed by Bush and Obama, we dont blame Christianity nor do we classify their actions as terrorism.

The US has for decades demonized its enemies: from the "Red" scare to Charlie and the "Gooks" in Vietnam. Dehumanization of the so called enemy is vital in the propaganda war.

And now many other countries are following suit.

The "Moslem" scare has allowed governments worldwide to violate (protected) rights on an unprecedented scale.

Because at the end of the day, when you really study all of these books, they can be quite disturbing.

Its not easy but take a step back and try to realize what all of this is really about.

If more "Christians" actually read the entirety of the Bible, most notably the Old Testament, they would realize that yes the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity by default are filled with violence, genocide, bigotry, sexism, etc ad infinitum.

Those who speak about other religious books preaching violence really haven't read their own.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
We get it Jesus didn't condone violence, history attests otherwise

Well, to be fair, if you go by the stories Jesus did promote peace and didn't condone violence. However, those same stories also say his followers had a hard time understanding his message so he had to keep repeating it. In the end it also got him tortured and killed. So while Jesus may in fact have promoted peace, it seems he might have been the only one who really liked that idea.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
I placed this thread under DD because this is not really a religious conspiracy, its based on verifiable facts. However, it would seem as though there is a an effort to demonize one religion (or religious text) over another when in actuality, the "Abrahamic" religions have a lot of similarities.

I found this interesting article written by Bruce Wilson (Top Christian Scholar: The Bible is More Violent Than the Koran) in which he talks about a book written by Philip Jenkins:

Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses.

"In terms of its bloodthirsty and intolerant passages, the Bible raises considerably more issues than does the Qur'an. Some Bible passages justify genocide and multigenerational race war; the Qur'an has nothing comparable.

While many Qur'anic texts undoubtedly call for warfare or bloodshed, these are hedged around with more restrictions than their biblical equivalents, with more opportunities for the defeated to make peace and survive.

Furthermore, any of the defenses that can be offered for biblical violence--for instance, that these passages are unrepresentative of the overall message of the text--apply equally to the Qur-an."

Brian goes on to explain that this should not be perceived as religious bashing but it should be viewed as an exercise in truth telling.

He provides excerpts from the book and then goes on to talk about the "Islamophobia industry".

For the Islamophobia industry* there are... ...claims that Islam is a uniquely violent or even a terrorist religion due to the nature of scripture found in the Koran.

The Bible, demonstrates Jenkins, contains scriptural violence that is categorically more extreme than scriptural violence found in the Koran. The Bible even offers, according to Jenkins, a much more specific scriptural justification for suicide terrorism than does the Koran.

The narrative that Islam is somehow uniquely violent and that this derives from Islamic scripture has become deeply embedded in American culture - one can encounter such arguments from popular comics such as Bill Maher, from Fox News, from Newsweek, even from trendy social media websites such as Reddit.com.

With regards to the conspiratorial aspect, Mr. Wilson references the following:

A report by the Center for American Progress:

REPORT: $42 Million From Seven Foundations Helped Fuel The Rise Of Islamophobia In America.

A "Right Wing" anti-Islamic "playbook":

The Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism.

and a report presented to Congress:

Tax Dollar Funding for Anti-Muslim Counterterrorism Training Revealed in Detailed Report to Congress.

...a vocal and influential sub-group of the private counterterrorism training industry markets conspiracy theories about secret jihadi campaigns to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law, and effectively impugns all of Islam -- a world religion with 1.3 billion adherents--as inherently violent and even terroristic.

Now, many of you will say, "so what"? Non-Moslems still arent as violent as Moslems.

But that reveals another issue.

When a non-Moslem commits a crime, we dont attribute those acts to their religion. This isnt the case for Moslems. If a crime is committed by a Moslem, we blame the religion as opposed to identifying them by their race or nationality.

Take for example the San Bernardino multiple victim public shooting. This was classified as an act of "terror" but the Binghamton, NY and the Aurora CO shootings were not. Why? Simply because of their religious backgrounds even though the acts were identical.

Mugabe, Lenin, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, Yakubu Gowon, Mengistu Haile Mariam, the most recognizable names in modern human suffering, none of them are designated or categorized by their religion...

Even the war crimes committed by Bush and Obama, we dont blame Christianity nor do we classify their actions as terrorism.

The US has for decades demonized its enemies: from the "Red" scare to Charlie and the "Gooks" in Vietnam. Dehumanization of the so called enemy is vital in the propaganda war.

And now many other countries are following suit.

The "Moslem" scare has allowed governments worldwide to violate (protected) rights on an unprecedented scale.

Because at the end of the day, when you really study all of these books, they can be quite disturbing.

Its not easy but take a step back and try to realize what all of this is really about.

As to your second point, yes, probably the greatest murderers and war criminals in the past century had nothing to do with Islam: Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

Also, the US has engaged in all kinds of imperialistic and deadly interventionist policies all over the world, most of it completely pre-emptive and illegal under international law. It is estimated that up to a million Iraqi civilians have died across the Gulf Wars. In Vietnam the numbers of civilian dead were very high.

Then let's look at torture by the CIA and so on.

Without any doubt far more murder, terror, oppression, and "terrorism" has been committed by the west and CHRISTIAN countries than by Muslims and Muslim majority countries. It's inarguable.

Terrorism has and is committed by the great powers, such as the US and Russia (USSR formerly). But it is legitimized when committed by the powerful.

a reply to: gladtobehere

The Koran was written over a much shorter period than the bible though it claimed to draw divine inspiration and be related to the bible so the division is not accurate as the violent passages this alludes too are actually of the Old Testament which to Islamic believers is regarded as holy as well and a book leading up to the Koran, they disagree with the more peaceful new testament of course and very few of them have ever read it though most Koran scholars have read the old Testament and of course draw parallel's between them and interpret accordingly.

As for genocide, did not Muhammed wipe out the men folk and non virgin's of Entire Arabian Jewish tribes and also the Kuffiri tribe after his men raped Um Kirfa, tied her to camel's, pulled her limb from limb and presented him with her head as a trophy.

Um Kirfa was a peace maker, the widow and Chieftain'ess of the Kuffiri tribe, Kuffir is an insult uttered by more extreme islamists against non islamists, she had been presented with over 50 swords which hung in her tent as sign's of allegiance and honour form other tribes whom she had mediated peace treaty's with and between but though the Kuffiri were mainly peaceful Muhammad saw them as a threat as they could rally the tribe's against his growing belligerent army of rapist and slaver's so with some hand picked men he snuck in to Um Kirfa's camp, it took some time to get close to her tent so his men crawled on there stomach's like snakes in the night and hid under the sand in the day.

She had a young child, a daughter so Muhammed gave her to his uncle to be used as a plaything (raped and abused), this is in the early version's of the sura's as was Muhammad's promise to his men that the Persian woman (he hated Persia for some reason) would lie on there back's with there leg's spread for them to rape.

Remember like the bible the Koran was edited and even altered into a more tolerant book, his last wife Aisha the rose of Damascus was only six in the earlier version's of the Sura's and brought her doll's when he made his follower, her father give her to him as his wife, her hair fell out (probably from the trauma of what he did) on her wedding night and supposedly he then never touched her until she was "nine" years of age when her hair started to grow again, he was in his fifty's when he married that child and in the koran it talks about him Thighing her as she was too small (not mature yet), that is rubbing his penis between her clenched thigh's.

So which do I prefer, well it has to be the Bible of course, the Isrealite's may have wiped out baby sacrificing cultists whom were squatting on the land God had given to the Isrealite's but at least that type of behaviour would have been frowned on very severely, they even went to war after one Jewish girl was raped to death and wiped the city were the men whom did that dwelt out.

Every attack I've seen labeled as terror the perps claim their religion. I've never seen a Christian, or Buddhist, or ect...... Version of jihad.

Some may cite the crusades. I believe they were not true Christians but either brainwashed or evil idiots very far from Christ.

The bible may be more violent sure, haven't read the Koran, but the people aren't actively bringing violence into reality.

A true practicing follower of Christ would never commit atrocities of terror.

I'm no "islamaphobe", just as my head is not buried in sand.

The movement of having to walk on eggshells around Islam reminds me of all the other politically correct intrusive crap.

I'd rather be non partial non political than politically correct. What is happening to us Humans, it's all gone to far, can't be fixed until after total destruction.

ETA: yeah I'm sticking up for my beliefs not Christianity, but I wouldn't dream about forcing my opinions down another's throat, blowing myself up or killing another for not doing the same.......IMO all religions are flawed, spirituality is where it's at.

"Religion is sitting in church thinking about kayaking, spirituality is sitting in a kayak thinking about God"
-someone cool-

Time for a break, on the light side.

Lewis Black on Religion..

a reply to: GoShredAK

A true practicing follower of Christ would never commit atrocities of terror.

Same would be true for Muslims.

It does not matter what religion it is, murderous people will find any verse to justify their terrorism.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: mOjOm

I see. Well, I don't see much of a difference in those statements. It's either used in Christian Teachings or it isn't. So which is it???

I refuse to believe that you are not intelligent enough to know the difference between "used in" and "based in" (or on).

How is Christianity NOT based on the OT when the alleged prophecies about the Messiah, predicting Jesus are in the OT, Jesus is attributed as specifically referencing OT passages in the 4 Gospels (as well as Paul's writings), is he not? Have you read the New Testament? If so, how do you not realize that the entirety of it has it's roots firmly grounded in OT scripture. To claim it is not based in the Old Testament is incredibly naive on your part or rooted entirely in ignorance from not having read the entire NT.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: GoShredAK

A true practicing follower of Christ would never commit atrocities of terror.

Same would be true for Muslims.
.

Sure, can't argue with that whatsoever.

In current times, though I'm aware propaganda is exaggerating the truth for some agenda, radical Islam seems to be the trend.

Individual crazies aside, Christians aren't killing, nor are Buddhists, pagans, wiccans, new Agers, non religious spiritual people, REAL MUSLIMS, atheists, freaking Jedis......

I don't know I'm not trying to debate this, said my bit and moving on peacefully.

a reply to: GoShredAK

In current times, though I'm aware propaganda is exaggerating the truth for some agenda, radical Islam seems to be the trend.

Sadly that is true. I fear that the problem is probably not Islam itself but the organizations who are brainwashing people and get them to fight in the Middle East and to put fear in the West for nefarious reasons. It isn't the first time. Just study the history of CIA for example.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Sure, the Bible contains violence, murder, deviant sex, betrayal, theft, child sacrifice, witchcraft, alcohol abuse, political corruption, anarchy and rebellion, just to name a few. Most of the time the Bible is saying, hey, don't do these horrible things but people still did them anyway and there were consequences. God even forgives these really degenerate and scummy people (again and again)!

There are histories and war stories and moral tales all through the Bible. It isn't some squeaky clean work about 'nice'. Its about how low we, as humans can be, and how a loving God is willing to lift and rehabilitate us, out of love, when we have done nothing to deserve it.

Some sample Bible quotes:

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed". "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life so we could be blameless". "Who then will condemn us? No one--for Christ Jesus died for us and was raised to life for us, and he is sitting in the place of honor at God's right hand, pleading for us".

Sometimes the truth is hard to take. It definitely is not about being "politically correct".

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Dosn't matter which book is more violent.
Christianity has been reformed over the years from a religion of conquest and conversion to something that doesn't interfere with secular life.

Much of Islam still has to undergo that same modernisation.

Did you just say Christianity doesn't interfere with secular life?

Please explain what you mean.

I've lived in the UK all my 46 years and the speeches from archbishops each Christmas and Easter are all about tolerance and being good citizens.

When a Christian gets a bee in their bonnet about something they generally preach the gospel in town to anyone who'll listen.

They don't call for death for anyone who doesn't follow their version, they're quite benign over here and viewed in the same way as old fashioned eccentrics.